SYNOPSIS- IASbaba’s TLP 2017 [23rd Jan] – Day 6

 ARCHIVES

1. What is nationalism? Why was nationalism on rise during the late 18th and 19th centuries? What were its fallouts? Discuss

A sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.

Nationalism has a number of near-synonyms, each of which carries its own distinct meaning. Patriotism is similar insofar as it emphasizes strong feelings for one’s country, but it does not necessarily imply an attitude of superiority.

Sectionalism resembles nationalism in its suggestion of a geopolitical group pursuing its self-interest, but the group in question is usually smaller than an entire nation.

Jingoism closely resembles nationalism in suggesting feelings of cultural superiority, but unlike nationalism, it always implies military aggressiveness.

Rise of Natioanlism:

French Revolution:

Before the rise of nationalism, people were loyal to the monarch rather than the country.

The idea of Nationalism came after the French Revolution when Monarchy was abolished and it became possible for the so called common people to rule. France had become a sovereign nation, and its people grew in their national loyalty. Many of them believed that their new system was working well, and they were ready to move out into the world to bring their discoveries to others.

The idea was spread by Napoleon in other European nations through wars. He created the Napoleonic Code in 1804 that unified French law, getting rid of regional variations and making one set of rules for everyone.

Napoleon’s aggression, however, increased the nationalistic impulses in his enemies and those he conquered. Defeated nations united around their hatred of Napoleon and his policies. Great Britain, for instance, avoided labor revolts because its people were busy backing their country’s fight against the French. Austrians, stung by defeat, collectively fumed about having to give up their territories.

Romanticism and National Identity:

Romantic movements in art and culture beginning in the early 19th century led to the development of various national identities in Europe. The British poet Lord Byron did much to increase the European public’s perception of nationalist uprisings.

Unification of Italy and Germany:

During the mid to late 19th century, nationalist “realpolitik” spurred the unification of two major European nations: Italy and Germany. “Realpolitik” is a practical approach to political diplomacy based largely on power dynamics between nations and other material factors. Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour from the Italian nation-state of Sardinia, is best known for his successful application of “realpolitik” as a means of convincing leaders of the various Italian nation states to unify. Otto von Bismarck, the first chancellor to King Wilhelm I of Prussia, used the military might of the Prussian armies to coerce other German states to unify under one German nation. This is perhaps the most oft-cited example of “realpolitik” in 19th-century European history.

Fallouts of Nationalism:

Nationalism affected Europe during the 19th century by making Europeans feel superior to other countries and governments, which led to the unification of both Germany and Italy, with Russia moving towards modernization and with France moving towards liberalism. This sense of superiority led to a stronger sense of unity between the peoples of each country and to a desire for increased military power which then, in turn, led to an alliance system between the European nations.

This alliance system was particularly helpful during World War II when the European countries needed to band together to defeat Hitler and the Nazis. However, before World War II, the European countries would enter into World War I for their nationalism, imperialism and militarism tendencies.

Nationalism is partly to blame for each of the wars as well because it was the primary reason why many of the European countries decided to build up their armies as well as their navy. It also was the reason for the great industrial movement and development in Europe, as the Europeans wanted to prove their greatness by inventing the latest tools and gadgets.

The European nations had a balanced power until a Serbian revolutionary killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the nephew to the Emperor of Austria-Hungary and one of the heirs to the Austrian throne. The revolutionary also killed the Emperor’s wife. From here, the countries were lured in one by one to take opposing sides and to fight in the First World War. After the end of the First World War, the countries formed their tight alliances with one another, which would be used in World War II.

(Note: The above synopsis is meant for your understanding. It contains extra information. Do not treat it as a model Answer.)

Best Answer : Hermoine Granger

Nationalism is a political and social philosophy which is based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation state surpasses other individual and group interests. It involves the shared communal identification with one’s nation.

RISE OF NATIONALISM IN 18th and 19th CENTURY

1) Industrial & Scientific revolution:- Advancements in the field of industries and science dictated a country’s economic prosperity. This gave the nation a sense of superiority.
2) Literature:- Renaissance literature spread widely with advancements in print media and the age of novels. Romanticised literature about national war heroes furthered the spirit of nationalism.
3) Philosophers and revolutionary thinkers:- Such as Rousseau and Thomas Paine, John Locke and Benjamin Franklin propagated the idea of democracy and self-governance among people.
4) Exploitative colonialism and imperialism:- European colonists exploited the resources of colonies in Asia, Africa and Latin America to their own advantage, hurting the interests of indegenous people. This later on led to revolts and revolutions in the colonies.

FALLOUTS OF NATIONALISM

1) Unification of Italy & fascism:- Nationalism was the driving force behind consolidation of different states in the Italian peninsula. Later on aggessive fascist policies of Mussoulini took over.
2) German unification & Rise of Hitler:- Under Prussian chancellor Otto von Bismark Germany was unified though it was Napoleon who with the organisation of Confederation of Rhine promoted a feeling of nationalism. Extreme form of nationalism was promoted with the rise of Hitler that led to holocaust.

3) Pan-Slavism:- This movement in Serbia aimed to attain integrity and unity of Slavic people, eventually leading to formation of Yugoslavia.

4) Piast concept:- Endorsed by Polish nationalists as the political idea of a Polish state based on it’s initial territories under Piast dynasty, it formed the centerpiece of Polish nationalism.

5) World wars:- Both the world wars were fought due to intense rivalries and tussle for power among the European countries.

The seeds of nationalism were sown as early as the French revolution. Despite it’s short history, it has had played a major role in forming the bonds that hold a nation together. This ideal led to the independence of many colonies of European countries in the 20th Century.

2. Do you think imperialistic aspirations of European powers were the main factors behind World War I? Critically examine. What was the scenario when the Great War ended? Discuss.

Introduction:

Conflict between the new and old imperialist European powers were the reasons for first world war because the nationalism lost its idealistic liberal-democratic sentiment and transform into narrow creed with limited ends.

Body:

Imperialist aspirations are reasons for WW1:

1-Economic rivalry: -In industrial and the commercial competition, Germany was gaining ground and developed apprehension in Great Britain.

2-Imperialism – because the prestige of these powers depends upon power and extent of its non-European possessions. France had colonies in Indochina and the British had colonized the Indian sub-continent. The colonies in Africa became the bone of contention between many European imperial states.

3-Vogue of military and the system of a military alliance like Triple Alliance, Triple entente and Double Alliance.

4-Competitive Militarism: -Where in one hand Germany increased the size of standing power and on other France’s extension to compulsory service and Russian Military expansion increased that friction.

Scenario after the world war:

1. Mandate System leads to League of Nation which helps to develop the democratic self-rule in defeated power’s colonies.
2. Abolition of secret diplomacy and the free navigation at sea during the war was given in President Wilson’s Fourteen points.
3. Entire generation of Europe was washed out, many farmland, homes, villages were destructed. It drained treasuries of Europe.
4. Four largest Monarchies disintegrated, in their place new countries arose.
5. The treaty of Versailles imposed huge repatriation on Germany which was to become the reason for another world war.

Conclusion: Write a brief conclusion.

Best answer: Vivek

Yes, indeed the imperialistic aspirations of European powers were the main factor behind World War I, because:
1. Rise of Germany as strong industrialist power with wide imperialist ambitions created rivalries and tensions with all major powers
2. Nature of conflicts and rivalries in Europe: Colonialist interests were the base for all rivalries between European powers. Eg. In Africa, Asia and Pacific, Russian interests in Balkan region, Serbian nationalism etc.
3. Formation of Alliances: Triple Alliance – Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy; Triple Entente: Britain, France and Russia. The alliances were formed to support their mutual colonialist and expansionist interests.
4. Moroccan Crisis: The imperialist aspiration of Germany to block France over its control of Morocco through sanction got a severe blow due to opposition by Britain, Russia, Italy and France, leading to German diplomatic failure and rise in tension around the region.

Scenario after the end of World War I:
1. Treaty of Versailles: Humiliating treaty putting huge economic burden on Axis powers including demilitarization and division of colonies.
2. Treaty of Sevres: Abolished Ottoman Empire and obliged Turkey to renounce all rights over Arab Asia and North Africa.
3. Division of Austria-Hungary into Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Poland.
4. Russia became Communist
5. Rise of US as a hegemonic power
6. Imperialism continued

3. What was the ‘policy of appeasement’? Why was it followed? Did it serve its purpose? Examine.

Introduction:

The appeasement policy was a conciliatory method of dealing with a dictatorial government in an effort to prevent conflict.

Body:

Why was the policy followed:

1. TheBritish people wanted peace- they would not have supported a war in early 1930s – Economic depression, 1929 + Failure of League of Nations.
2. Many ofHitler’s complaints appeared reasonableat the time – especially about the Treaty of Versailles.
3. Chamberlainwanted a strong Germany to serve as a barrieragainst expansion by communist Russia.
4. Britain’s armed forces were not ready for a war, and they could not have helped Czechoslovakia anyway.
5. Chamberlain remembered theslaughter of the First World War; he thought another war would destroy civilization.

Did the policy serve the purpose?

1. Japan who enjoyed appeasement of Britain did not stop from its invasion of China.
2. Instead of avoiding any conflict, it made Allied powers appear weak and Axis powers took full advantage of it.
3. Hitler was undeterred by appeasement. In March 1939, he violated the Munich Agreement by occupying the rest of Czechoslovakia. Six months later Germany invaded Poland and Britain was at war.

Conclusion: Write a brief conclusion.

Best answer: Monica Mohan

Policy of Appeasement was the principle of avoiding war with aggressive powers like Japan,Italy and Germany by accepting their demands if it sounded reasonable. It was a policy followed by Britain and France and is the important reason for German success in violating the Treaty of Versailles.

Reasons behind the Policy of Appeasement:

1. To avoid war:Having seen the bombing of Spanish cities and civilians of 1936, Britain and France were reluctant to confront war with aggressive powers who are economically and militarily strong.
2. To prolong the time before war:Britain and France were unprepared for war and were in need for rearmament. They followed the policy so that it would be a deterrent.
3. Economic crisis of 1929:European powers could not afford rearming and the expenses of huge war was unimaginable.
4. Genuine grievances:Germany and Italy gained the public sympathy that the grievances of Germany are genuine provided the harsh clauses of Treaty of Versailles.
5. Fear for Communist Russia:Conservatives feared communist expansion and hoped Nazi Germany to be a buffer.
6. Failure of League of Nations:The League faileed to acheive the objectives and the British PM Chamberlain emphasized personal contact among leaders to resolve conflicts.

The policy of appeasement only worsened the situation leading to large-scale WW2 as it prevented British and French to act against growing strength of Germany (Rhineland Occupation) as they needed time for rearmament. They failed to recognize the genuine claims of Germany over Polish Corridor than Czechoslovakia once they strengthened their arms. Thus, Policy of appeasement was only a failure that lead to disastrous Second World War.

4. The ban on consumption of alcohol in Bihar is symbolic of a parent state which is not good for a democracy. Do you agree? Critically examine.

Many of your answers have highly deviated from the demands of the question. It is vital to learn the ability to decode or identify the demand areas.

One more area to concentrate – Some of you have started well with initial content being in line with demand, however at the later part he/she are getting deviated from the actual demand, because you are getting carried away (or) failing to re-read the question (or) due to uncontrolled influence on the topic (or) misunderstanding of demand areas.

For instance, in this question, the actual demand areas are –

Demand 1: Ques provides a statement or an argument, which already describes that – the ‘ban on alcohol consumption symbolizes parent attitude or governance of the state and is not good for a democracy’.

Demand 2: Critically examine. Here, one needs to provide content which both agree with and contradict the above argument.

Therefore, your job is to highlight your opinion – whether this interference by the state, acting as a parent of its citizens’, dictating them what to drink or not to drink is good for a democracy or not good.

Main theme is – whether ‘Parent state’ is threat to democracy or not?

Come to a final conclusion, basing your decision on what you judge to be the most important factors and justify how you have made your choice.

Introduction:

While health campaigners have welcomed the ban on consumption of alcohol in Bihar, describing the move as “parent state” interference seeking to direct its citizens for their own good; others have objected the way the state treating them as if they are children, unable to take responsibility for their own lives.

Why this ban serving as a symbol of a parent state not good for a democracy? (Write any 2-3 points given below)

• A constitutional democracy upholds individual rights over state actions and hence any interference of state on personal matters of people does not align along the values of constitution or modern society.
• Protecting and upholding natural rights of its citizen is the duty of the state. A citizen has a natural right to choose how he lives, so long as he is not a nuisance to the society. State cannot dictate what he will eat and what he will drink.” The culture of imposing ‘ban’ pollutes the soul of the democratic society and violates Article 21 ‘Right to privacy’.
• Democratic India, which is driven by welfare state approach, looks for an overall development of the citizens and increasing the number of restriction and limiting the scope of free will hinder that development.
• The principles of liberty dictate that a man, in his capacity, without hurting the rights of other, is privileged to make his choices himself, without any outside coercion.
• Democracy entails reasoned decision making considering the citizen welfare. Complete prohibition initiated in Bihar though in line with principles of safeguarding public health has violated individual’s personal choice.

Why this ban serving as a symbol of a parent state good for a democracy?

• People in democracy elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf, as such the elected governments will have paternalistic attitude while forming welfare policies.
• Government sometimes, on the course to protect the welfare of individual and welfare of people at large, has to limit their rights so that the code of civil society is maintained.
• While imposing the ban might be seen to be a little authoritarian but the consequences of not taking any action appear far abhorrent.
• Considering all the social evils and concerns caused by Alcohol, the force of action has to be external. In that situation, terming the state as symbolic of ‘parent state’ which is not good for a democracy is not justified as democracy does not only exemplify rights but also responsibility.

Conclusion

Democracy relies on informed, logical, mentally stable, participative citizens. Deranged, addictive, frustrated citizen is rather a burden on democracy. Also, government’s fight against crime is an integrated approach depended on people’s participation. Our individual freedoms are protected by reasonable restrictions, which inherently recognise that a certain threshold has to be crossed before they can be taken away. The state’s decision to ban consumption of alcohol therefore may be termed as a parent state governance or attitude but is for the good of the democracy.

Best answer 1: Arjun

The ban on consumption of alcohol in Bihar is undoubtedly symbolic of a parent state but to say it is always against the spirit of democracy is not necessarily correct. As a responsible govt elected by the people, its major task is to take ‘decisions’ on behalf of the same people. The issues vary in its significance and so does the arbitrariness and firmness of decisions. ‘what is the greater good for the society’ cannot be found out by narrowly looking into issues.

A blanket ban by ‘parent’ State often undermines citizen rights. This can sometimes lead to become a threat to democracy but not in this case anyway. Instances like beef ban cannot be related to this incident since former in most cases does not logically justify the ends it tries to achieve and often is lead by vested interests.

Underdevelopment, low educational and health conditions are socio-economic realities Bihar faces. Alcohol is believed to be one of the reason for this arguably. Thus Bihar liquor ban case instead of looking it as pro ban v/s anti ban debate the greater aspect of ‘relation between Art 21 and Art 47’ has to be taken care of. This leads the debate into much wider dimension that whether an Individual’s right of ‘Protection of life and personal liberty’ is supreme or is it States’s duty to ‘raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health’ important.

A harmonious solution has to be reached by an agreement between the state and citizen. If here instead of forcing state to exercise Article 47, a citizen himself by delivering his fundamental duty to restrict, restrain and regulate his consumption can solve this social menace.

Thus democracy cannot be threatened by parent state just because it is taking decisions. But democracy as a nobel idea gets heavily thretened when State ceases to take decisions because some sections of society opposes a view.

Best answer 2: MOL0929

1. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ef416307b086a950b8fd78f21ba0b346974aec2dc5c041c92d0b9a9d19b105d3.jpg
2. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3509044c56d5b85a645fff8972bc5b207c83d6768b092f25f0ae10fb6ae38a37.jpg

5. Is it high time for India to ratify CTBT? Give your views.

CTBT is a legally binding global ban on nuclear explosive testing. It is a key element in the process of nuclear disarmament: a ban on the production of fissile material for anything other than verified peaceful use. Such a ban would impose a quantitative limit on the amount of nuclear material available for weapons use.

Give both the views whether it is high time for India to ratify CTBT or not.

Why India has to ratify CTBT?

• India already possesses a sufficient arsenal of fission weapons. Signing the CTBT now would lead to diplomatic gains and strengthen its case for NSG membership.
• At a time when we are increasingly accepted as an emerging global power and as a responsible member of the nuclear community, a voluntary decision to sign the CTBT would enhance our stature further.
• It can stop nuclear race at least in the neighbourhood of India which can establish peace in the long run. It will encourage other nation states to sign the CTBT.
• It will give India access to wealth of data generated by CTBTO’s international monitoring stations.
• By signing CTBT India can put forward his candidancy as a Permanant member of UNSC more strongly.
• Re-affirms India’s stance towards global nuclear disarmament.

Why India should not sign it?

• CTBT is visibly biased simply because of the discriminatory nature in its present format as it is advantageous to nuclear weapons holder.
• Threat from India’s two hostile neighbours (China and Pakistan)
• India’s voluntary moratorium on nuclear tests and No first use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear state policy form the credible deterrence against hostile Pakistan and opportunistic China. But if CTBT is signed, this strategic deterrence will be lost.
• Countries like US have still not ratified the treaty. Even if India signs the CTBT other states like US, Pakistan and China may not join despite international pressures.
• India’s no first use policy and credibility of India is already recognized by NSG exemption.
• To improve upon the yield of the nuclear weapon we need field testing as we don’t have technology to proliferate them in labs without going to fields.

Arguments for signing CTBT far outweighs reasons for not signing it but considering threats to its security India should not hurry its ratification until its concerns are adequately addressed. Though nuclear disarmament should be supported it cannot be at the cost of National security where India can sign if accountability of both NWS and NNWS are ensured without any discrimination.

Best answer 1: MOL0929

1. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/24e210265ae089a6a0375af15f8d882e2f50918631a79b544cded20551462957.jpg
2. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/102faf94453a0df7bc00e3ab5c6117a6ee18b98653bdd6313e1ab4cc5d876b02.jpg

Best answer 2: Abhinav Dahiya

CTBT (comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty) is the treaty that bans all nuclear tests for anyone, anywhere in the world, negotiated in conference of disarmament, Geneva. India has not signed CTBT because it finds it discriminatory and against developing economies.

If India signs CTBT then:-

1) It will get an easy entry in to the NSG ( nuclear supply group), as china has blocked India’s entry  into the group as India is not a signatory of CTBT and NPT.

2) it will concrete India’s willingness towards disarmament of nuclear weapons.

Why India should not sign CTBT-

1) Deteriorating relations of India with its neighbors are a cause of concern.

2) Pakistan high handedness in using nuclear weapons. Defense minister of Pakistan threatened Syria of nuclear strike over a bogus social media news.

3) India has already signed civil nuclear deal with Japan, that will help India in technology transfer and using nuclear technology in effective power generation and supply of fuel so this agreement to some extent diminishes the benefits India will acquire from NSG.

4) USA has signed CTBT but not ratified it.

5) Countries like North Korea, Pakistan have a considerable amount of nuclear warhead.

India should not sign CTBT as it has refrained from signing any sort of discriminatory treaty from the time of Cold war and in the wake of present scenario in south Asia and west Asia it is not the right time for any sort of disarmament policy. India is a responsible nuclear state with a mandate of ‘NO FIRST USE’ and for the protection of the country in case of second strike it has to have something to rely on